Ben Roberts-Smith accepts he should pay legal costs in defamation case; Kerry Stokes disputes liability

Ben Roberts-Smith has conceded that he should pay Nine Entertainment’s legal costs arising from his failed defamation case, but his chief backer Kerry Stokes disputes liability.

Former SAS soldier Ben Roberts-Smith. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

Former SAS soldier Ben Roberts-Smith has conceded he should pay Nine’s legal costs in his long-running case against the media company, but his chief financial backer, Kerry Stokes, is disputing his own liability.

Earlier this month, Federal Court judge Anthony Besanko ruled that The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times had substantially justified imputations that Mr ­Roberts-Smith had murdered four prisoners, including a ­farmer who was kicked off a cliff in the village of Darwan, and a one-legged man dragged from a tunnel at the compound known as ­Whiskey 108.

On Thursday, the Federal Court heard Mr Roberts-Smith accepted he should cover the legal expenses of Nine news­papers dating back to March 17, 2020, when the decorated veteran knocked back an offer to settle with the media group, having launched proceedings in 2018.

“My client has sought a costs order against Mr Roberts-Smith,” Nine’s barrister, Nicholas Owens SC, told the court. “Mr Roberts-Smith accepts he should pay costs of the proceedings … but it remains in dispute whether he pays prior to March 17, 2020, on an indemnity basis.”

Nine Entertainment is also pursuing an order for third-party costs from Seven West chairman Kerry Stokes and the Seven Network for funding the defamation case, with the legal bill thought to be between $25m and $35m.

Mr Stokes has been in Mr Roberts-Smith’s corner since the former soldier first launched the case in 2018. When the findings were handed down on June 1, Mr Stokes said the judgment “does not accord with the man I know”.

Seven Chairman Kerry Stokes. Picture: Aaron Francis

The media mogul initially funded Mr Roberts-Smith’s legal battle through Seven West Media, before shifting the liability to his private company, Australian Capital Equity.

On Thursday, the court heard both ACE and Seven dispute any liability for Nine’s legal costs, on the grounds they weren’t actual parties to the proceedings.

Justin Williams SC, appearing for Seven, ACE and their lawyers, said: “There is nothing surprising or inappropriate in parties such as Seven Network or ACE attending and observing proceedings.”

A spokesman for Mr Stokes declined to comment when contacted by The Australian after the hearing.

Mr Roberts-Smith’s barrister, Arthur Moses SC, told the court his client had until July 12 to file an appeal to the findings. He did not flag whether Mr Roberts-Smith intended to appeal.

In the June 1 judgment, Justice Besanko said Mr Roberts-Smith and four of the witnesses he called were deemed “not honest or reliable” in their evidence about two of the murders.

The judge reserved his decision on costs.

Later on Thursday, The Sydney Morning Herald claimed that Mr Roberts-Smith had been seen leaving the offices of a bankruptcy lawyer in Perth soon after the Sydney court hearing had concluded.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING:
NCA NEWSWIRE